1. VR’s four base criteria for review 1. Novelty and originality 2. Scientific quality of the proposed research 3. Merits of applicant(s) 4. Feasibility For each of these criteria there is a number of ”guiding questions” for the reviewer to keep in mind when he or she reads the proposal.

2. 1: Originality Can the project be regarded as unconventional? Does it challenge prevalent opinions or practice? Is there potential for the creation of new knowledge, exciting new ideas and approaches, directions for research and understanding of health and illness? Does the project include use of novel technologies/methodologies, or innovative application of existing methodologies/technologies in new areas?

3. 2: Scientific quality Is the project scientifically significant? Does the overall design of the project, its research questions and hypotheses meet the standards of highest quality? Are the scientific/intellectual merits of the proposed research clear, convincing and compelling? Does the proposed project have the character of thoroughness, e. g. in its definition of the problem and proposed solutions, and its review of the state of the art? Are the proposed research methods, infrastructures, equipment and fieldwork appropriate?

4. 3: The applicant Does the applicant have sufficient research experience, expertise, level of independence and scientific network for implementation of the proposed project? Of what merits are the applicant’s academic qualifications and achievements, in relation to his or her career stage and active time for research? Do the publications show a distinct and independent line of research, or the potential of such?? (Focus on quality rather than quantity.) Are the collaborators appropriately chosen, with defined roles in the project?

5. 4: Feasibility Is the general design, including time schedule, optimal for implementing the proposed project? Does the project include the availability and accessibility of relevant personnel, skills, equipment, facilities/infrastructures and other necessary resources? Are materials, patients and methods adequate and well adapted to the hypothesis or research question? Is the environment suitable for carrying out the proposed research?